Organ donation: “Only yes means yes”

Parliament wanted to discreetly introduce the opt-out solution for organ donation through the back door. But nothing will come of it: the people will probably have the last word.

Will we all be potential organ donors soon? In the picture an anatomical model of a heart.

Annick Ramp / NZZ

In Switzerland, there is currently a lively discussion about whether the “Only yes means yes” rule should apply to sexual acts in the future. Sex would therefore require the explicit consent of those involved in order for it to be permitted. Soon, probably in May, the electorate is likely to decide on a different kind of “Only yes means yes” rule, which is also about core values ​​such as self-determination, personal integrity and integrity. It is organ donation.

The question at issue is whether organ removal still requires the consent of the donor or, at most, the consent of his family, as is the case today. Or whether consent will be waived in the future and, in principle, every person who has not expressly opposed it during their lifetime is regarded as an organ donor – the current “Only yes means yes” would become “Only no means no”, the consent solution would become a contradiction solution . Anyone who does not refuse to have their heart, kidney, cells, etc. removed during their lifetime and who documents their will in a national register would be a potential donor.

From SVP to Wecollect

The Federal Council considers the objection solution to be a good way of increasing the number of donor organs, as does Parliament: last autumn it approved a corresponding amendment to the Transplantation Act. The template is the indirect counter-proposal to the popular initiative “Promote organ donation – save lives”, which was withdrawn conditionally.

The fact that the Swiss population will probably be able to vote on the paradigm shift is thanks to a committee with the somewhat unwieldy name “No to organ donation without explicit consent”. It held the referendum against the amendment to the transplantation law and submitted more than 60,000 signatures to the Federal Chancellery on Thursday.

As is so often the case with ethically significant templates, the opposition is mixed. The group is represented externally by doctor Alex Frei and midwife Susanne Clauss. Other members of the referendum committee are the ethicist Ruth Baumann-Hölzle, the liberal Council of States Josef Dittli, the SVP national councilor Verena Herzog, the former green-liberal Zurich government councilor Verena Diener, the former SP national councilor Gret Haller, plus philosophers, law and theology professors.

The Committee is of the opinion that it is ethically and legally unacceptable to remove organs from a person unless the will of the person is clearly stated. Law professor Franziska Sprecher from the University of Bern pointed out to the media that any medical intervention requires the informed consent of the person concerned and that this condition is circumvented by the objection solution. There will always be people who don’t know that they have to expressly refuse organ removal. Next spokesman reminded that no one is entitled to the organs of another person. Since the discussion about organ donation is usually only conducted from the point of view of the terminally ill organ recipient, this thought is often overlooked.

Many groups and movements helped with the collection of signatures for the referendum, the SVP was there as well as the friends of the constitution or the democracy platform Wecollect, which offers a hand especially for collections of red-green concerns. When it comes to organ donation, Wecollect proves to be a direct democratic believer: the platform had previously supported the collection of signatures for the organ donation initiative in order to enable a broad discussion on the topic. After the popular initiative was withdrawn, Wecollect helped with the referendum.

Buttery resistance

In all probability, the far-reaching change in organ donation will not be able to be introduced as quietly and discreetly as Parliament intended. Both councils approved the law quickly and practically without any depth, the resistance remained buttery soft, which is surprising in view of the social importance of the revision. Perhaps the project was particularly well orchestrated by the interested groups. Maybe it was the distraction caused by the pandemic. Or maybe the parliamentarians felt pressure because of Corona to wave through everything that sails under the heading of social solidarity.

In the months leading up to the polls, it will now be possible to engage in the debate that has been missed so far, and to shed light on and deepen all the difficult aspects involved in end-of-life organ harvesting.

source site-111